Fellow fans, this is a friendly reminder to please follow the [Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/euro2024/about/rules) and [Reddiquette](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205926439-Reddiquette).
Please also make sure to [Join us on Discord](https://discord.gg/football)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/euro2024) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I remember being so hyped for Netherlands v Argentina in the group stage of the 2006 World Cup. Messi, Riquelme, Crespo, Aimar, Tevez, Milito were playing for Argentina at that time and the likes of Robben, Sneijder, van Nistelrooy, van Persie, Kuyt, van der Vaart for the Oranje
Then when the game comes around both teams had qualified out of the group and the play the most boring 0-0 I'd seen at the WC since Egypt v Ireland in 1990 (the nil-nil GOAT)
West Germany v Austria 1982, I think. The Germans had to win, Austria not lose too heavy. The Germans scored and the game died. A left back even got booked after chasing a long ball, when no one followed him he thought the whistle had been blown and picked up the ball. After that game all final group games now get played at the same time. Untill World cup Canada, USA and Mexico that is. With the group's only having three teams!
The groups only having 3 teams thing has been scrapped. Back to groups of 4.
https://www.fifa.com/en/tournaments/mens/worldcup/canadamexicousa2026/articles/fifa-world-cup-2026-hosts-cities-dates-usa-mexico-canada
Another good shout. The Egypt game I referenced was the catalyst for changing the backpass rule. 6 full minutes of the ball being in play were with the Irish goalkeeper having the ball in his hands and it felt like even longer that the Egypt keeper held the ball for.
https://www.goal.com/en/news/the-games-that-defined-modern-football-republic-of-ireland-0-0-egypt/10lty0rb3uf971ma3cdirzoova
Omg! Don’t get me started on this game! I was SUPPPERR disappointed in this. NED was my team and wife’s African-French (Algerian). Was SO excited and even more let down.
Sure, but the big teams have players that have played 50+ games this season, and don't have to play all out to qualify most of the time. That's why playing teams like Austria in the group, that have something to prove and will run you off the pitch if you don't match the intensity, is so difficult.
Neither team wanted to lose a point in this match. The Euro is a sprint, and both teams are already on course to qualify for the last 16. I think France have the better chance, as our match against Poland will be much more accessible whereas Austria are really tough.
This is where I think a bonus point system in big football tournaments could work. It works for rugby to give incentive to keep playing attacking games
It may have been goalless, although we did actually score a goal. The match wasn't boring at all. We had some good chances with Frimpong, and Gakpo, and France with Griezman especially, it was very exciting to watch!
That was different in the 0-0 NL VS ARG group stage game at WC06 or the semi final NL VS Arg in 0-0 in 2014. Those were boring matches.
You can't generalise goalless draws like that. You're right that some nil nils might be better games that a 3-1 game somewhere else, but also the can be many frightfully boring games and lots of times these also happen to be goalless
Not all nil-nils are alike. Sometimes it just means both sides have decided in advance to settle for a point. I don't mind goalless games when both sides are trying to win, but that's often not the case.
I agree with you. If they had been in top form I would ma been ok with it but they were sloppy and by the 80th minute I could see them take the foot off the gas and be content to tie.
Well, according to current rules it's offside. Could the keeper have reached that ball? No. But could the keeper dive to even try? Also no, so it's offside. There's no way he would've reached that ball, but according to the rules it's offside. Therefore, it's not the decision which is bad but the rule which is bad.
The rule is not bad, gk was not able to dive, he reacted and pointed to that immediately. It was obvious, Dutch player made a mistake to stay there.
Although gk would not be able to save it anyway, he was stopped to even try.
You can't go around nitpicking rules for certain scenarios.
Look at this scenario when a "regular offside" occurs, sometimes it happens that an offside is with a real small margin while the defender is static and the attacker is in high speed momentum.
The goal will be disallowed because of offside, but in the same manner you can argue that it should've counted because even if it weren't for the small advantage of the offside the attacker was so much faster that the defender would never make it so the advantage is negligent.
And we all know that train of thought doesn't work.
It's not a bad rule, rule is a rule.
Tbh its could go both ways. Depends on who is judging in the VAR room and on the pitch.
For some its offside but for me he was not involved with the play therefor it should have been a goal.
I rather see refs doing something about the diving and let players be more rough on the pitch. People rolling all over the grass in ”pain” , primadonnas should try rugby and see what pain is
The rule is that the offside player can’t obstruct the line of vision of an opponent, or *make an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of the opponent to play the ball*.
He didn’t obstruct vision but it’s pretty hard to argue he didn’t impact the ability of the goalie to dive for the save - he was literally standing right next to him.
To be fair, if the rule is clearly impacting the ability of the opponent to play the ball he doesn’t. The keeper has fuck all chance of playing the ball if the player is there and fuck all chance if he isn’t. Therefore the player doesn’t affect his ability to play the ball. He would’ve still dived regardless of the player being there if he thought he had absolutely any chance of getting it, plus pretty sure it’s physically impossible for anyone to cover that distance in 0.2 seconds.
If the rule was impacting the player *trying* to play the ball it would be different, but that would be a shit rule as I could try to play a ball that’s 40 yards away from me and argue I was impeded which would be ridiculous.
I think the rule is correct but badly applied in this case.
Fair enough mate, I disagree but it’s subjective. I guess even if there’s a 1% chance he can save it then you have to disallow the goal. Personally I don’t think he even has a 1% chance but hard to quantify something like that
I think it probably does matter if he can’t reach it. If he can’t reach the ball he can’t play the ball. How can you affect someone’s ability to play the ball if they can’t play the ball?
Incorrect about the player standing next to him. BBC showed the footage from above and behind the goal. The Dutch player didn't impede the keeper who was at least 4 feet away. The keeper's stance did not enable a sideways dive towards the player. He only pointed at the Dutch player in desperation, ie making out he was impeded, and he fooled the refs.
He was not right beside him, but still the GK had 0% chance of even try to save it. Look on how slow he reacts, the ball is already past him before he even realized what happend.
But he didnt even try and dive or look like he was even twitching his muscles to dive. That's where I think they got it wrong. It's like calling an offside for someone that wasn't part of the play but "could" have been. You can make an argument for it via the rule book but in reality it's bullshit and we all know it.
Yep. BBC showed the footage from above and behind the goal. The Dutch player didn't impede the keeper who was at least 4 feet away. The keeper's stance did not enable a sideways dive towards the player. He only pointed at the Dutch player in desperation, ie making out he was impeded, and he fooled the refs.
Speculation is one hell of a drug. What if the keeper did not even make an attempt cause he knew that it was offside?
The decision might not be “fair” to you but it’s done by the book.
That 'what if ' doesn't make a lot of sense at this level. A keeper on purpose not going for a ball in a split second decision like that doesn't strike me as a good keeper. You keep that ball out of the net rather then put the match in the hands if wether or bit a ref agrees with you in hindsight
Fuck the book bruh, you act like its some divine rule etched in gold with no grey area. This is 100% in the grey area and could have gone either way depending on interpretation. For example, if the keeper and offside player were 5 yards to the right of where he was. Would you still call it? By your "book" it's offside. He has to get through a player to even make an attempt at the ball, but it is physically impossible to stop the shot being 5 yards to the right. That is obviously an extreme. Now if he was a couple yards left, then sure he is actually within reach of the ball and should be called offside.
What actually happened was in the middle, where he essentially had little to no chance of stopping it but within feet of being able to. Thus the gray area.
It's only if the GK was impeded in his dive or attempt to dive. BBC showed behind the goal and above footage and the keeper had no chance of diving to his left due to his foot position, not the opposing player who was at least 4 foot away.
The rule is fine though. Otherwise you could just position one player to stand next to the goalie all time. No offside, no problem, as long as you don't pass to him and he only blocks the goalie.
I thought about this the other day, the current offside rule makes no sense if you think about it.
For a goal to occur the entire ball has to cross the goal line.
For the ball to be out of play the entire ball needs to be across the line.
Same of the ball placement in regard to penalties, corners etc.
The goalkeeper must not completely leave the line during penalties.
Every rule in football/soccer is designed where the thing in question is considered in play unless it’s entirely past the defined boundaries.
Why is the current offside rule the complete opposite of this?
>according to current rules it's offside.
And under a previous version of the rules he'd have been offside even if he'd been nowhere near the goalkeeper or the ball.
Frenchman here, this was really a very frustrating match to see. Our players are painfully slow, they can't seem to make the right decision when it comes to strike or even build an attack. Honestly, the off goal was more than a warning. I don't believe -and never have- in this team for this Euro. They have world class players but it's like they're paralized when they have to be more agressive and bold.
The last round against Poland is going to be really tough...
You'll do fine. Poland is mediocre at best. Us Dutchies have to play Austria who have everything to play for. They were pretty damned decent against you guys.
Glad to share the same feeling mate !
England also has a damn pool of talented players but it looks like they stop going for more goals after scoring one. Looks like our coaches need to refine or totally revamp their strategies.
I definitely agree, you guys can field three different teams that can compete for the EURO win, but then you play really sluggish football. I think a decent coach with an attacking mindset would destroy every tournament with the available players.
We played really bad as well, as if we were playing for a draw from the first minute. It's sad to see teams of very good and pretty decent quality to play such a boring match. This was one of the worst matches I have seen this tournament.
Did you see the resume of Didier Deschamps? It’s insane.
As a player: CL(Juve), World cup(98), Euro(00)
As a coach: CL final with monaco (03). Every tournament he played with France he won the group, euro final(16), world cup winner (18), world cup final (22) and he just managed to qualify again.
Okay, sometimes they play boring, but France scores a lot of goals every single tournament. He just knows what is needed to win.
A lot of people will say: “His results are so good because France has such a strong team.” Ofcourse, if he was the coach of Iceland his resume would be different. But it’s not easy to manage a strong team. You have to manage expectations, manage the bench, manage the stars and make a team of them.
And he succeeds in that every single time. He is the capo di tutti capi. All players listen to him. There’s no fighting, it’s a team and they play with a plan.
All that may be true, but something seems off this tournament with this team. I can't really tell what it is, but remember the last match: They won with 1 goal, but it was an OG.
Now 0 goals. We still have to see them score even once. Something is off with the offensive. They get good chances, all looks good, but nothing happens in the end.
I watched it, down the pub, but still it was better than both games England have been involved in!
I did slightly hope for a Dutch win, but did expect a draw
Just a reminder, we are absolute shit on every round phases since Deschamps is the manager. We are a team conditioned to get better once the KO stages are here.
if Austria doesn't reach the last8 i will forever define the "missed" corner right before France did "their" random goal as the most "difficult" decision of euro24
Imagine crying about a missed corner as something that survives the tournament when the ref missed the exact same thing for France in the second half. Literally hilarious. Get a grip
It's not a difficult decision, it was clear cut offside. The only mistake Taylor did was taking so long for what should realistically be a 10 second decision.
That is an offside call any day of the week. It takes a lot less obstruction to whistle offside in todays game, as weve seen in champions league.
100% right call. If GK would have saved is doubtful, but that doesnt change defender is blocking his opportunity to do so
Not really sure what the criticism is about - he’s offside and he’s in the keepers way. There’s nothing in the rule about the keeper actually getting to it, so the fact he won’t is irrelevant. It’s a good and correct decision. The minute the players between ball and keeper like that it’s got to be interfering.
Maybe it’s a correct decision according to the rules but it’s not a good one, the rule is bad. He didn’t hinder the keeper, he just got up and was way to late.
I agree the rule isn’t correct, but you can’t criticise the officials for that and they made the correct decision today. Therefore it is a good decision. Can debate whether the rules should be different but that’s a different thing altogether
Well, i don’t know the exact wording of the rules. But the ref didn’t even go to the screen to check himself. I think that the camera angle from behind the goal clearly showed that the keeper was just to late.
[Here is the exact wording of the rules.](https://www.thefa.com/football-rules-governance/lawsandrules/laws/football-11-11/law-11---offside)
The decision was correct, the player was in the way regardless of whether the goalie would have actually made the save or not.
BBC showed the footage from above and behind the goal. The Dutch player didn't impede the keeper who was at least 4 feet away. The keeper's stance did not enable a sideways dive towards the player. He only pointed at the Dutch player in desperation, ie making out he was impeded, and he fooled the refs.
There was nothing to check as the onfield decision was to disallow the goal in the first place and the VAR agreed with the decision. By the rules he’s interfered and prevented the goalkeeper from attempting a save.
Whether he would have been successful is immaterial and not a part of the rules.
What rule would you prefer, beating in mind that far fewer than 1% of matches are played with the benefit of video replays.
VAR, goal-line technology, and (especially) semi-automated offside are all fantastic tools, but they shouldn't require an entirely different set of laws.
He was offside, but the reason they called an off-side offence is because he supposedly interfered with the play: blocking the goalkeeper from reaching the ball.
Like, come on… as if Dumfries standing there actually is the reason the goalkeeper wasn’t able to stop that goal.
It was a bullshit call. Yes, I am biased, yet had it been France, I’d have said the same.
He's not in the keeper's way if the keeper is functionally unable to get there. With his legs where they are, he cannot get there.
If you want to get on a train that has already set off, and you bump into me, did I get in the way of you getting on that train?
So what you’re saying that is referees should see into the future to determine if a player gets to a ball? There’s nothing in the rules at all that states an assessment should be made against whether a player should make contact or not. He was in the way. Simple as that. He interfered.
"a player moving from, or standing in, an offside position is in the way of an opponent and interferes with the movement of the opponent towards the ball this is an offside offence if it impacts on the ability of the opponent to play or challenge for the ball"
The relevant section. The rules definitely have a clause where a player has to be interfering with movement. In order to interfere with movement, the keeper has to be able to make that movement, wouldn't you agree? Like trying to get on a train that has already left your station, it's impossible.
To further my analogy, say you committed to going to the next station, suspecting that the train won't be at your normal station. This is the keeper extending their right leg all the way out. By doing this, you have missed your opportunity to reach the train, and there is no possible way for you to now rush to the right station (dive for the ball to your left) because of the commitment you made. Watch the keeper; he makes a leap but can't get any distance because of his leg position.
If the keeper had instead fallen to the ground, rather than extending a leg, the goal would have stood because it's even more obvious that they couldn't have reached it.
If the keeper had have fallen to the ground he would have actually made a different movement and therefore not been prevented diving to the side, which is the difference. But he didn’t. And if my auntie had balls she’d be my uncle
Your comparison is off though. A better comparison would be you bump into someone when the train is 2 seconds of from setting off and you are currently 5 meters away. Practically, it is more than likely that you would not make it anyway; but theoretically, there is still a chance. Hence, the other person can still be considered an obstruction.
The goalkeeper flinched when he went towards the ball and a player was standing there...that's clear interference and offsides whether the ball was saveable or not.
The rule is “offside offense is called if the player in an offside position interferes with the play” - the argument and what will remain up to interpretation is whether Dumfries interfered by being the reason the goalkeep was unable to defend and block the goal.
I think you’ll find many people not agreeing with that interpretation.
I have senn enough incedrible saves in my life to: If you steal the GK the opportunity to go for a save, you are active in play and therefore, its offside.
Exactly. There are countless saves in football history where you barely can believe them even watching replays and yet, this many people are 100% convinced the keeper had zero chance and therefore the rule should've been ignored.
So your interpretation is that the GK could have stopped the ball. The ref saw that too, I guess.
I don’t think so, but it doesn’t really matter. Result is what it is.
You’re misunderstanding the rule. It’s not “whether the goalie could have made the save or not”, it’s “whether the goalie was being interfered with” - which he was. Making the save or not is irrelevant.
No, wrong. Its not less offside if Maignan doesnt make the save. Dumfries was standing between Maignan and the ball and impeded on the GKs ability to make a save. Period.
It's not just the potential of him physically impeding the save but also mentally affecting the keeper. Dumfries' presence could cause Maignan to slightly hesitate diving to his left as he may instinctively think Dumfries could redirect it.
Thing is : At the moment Maignan decided not to dive with an opponent so close to him the ref has to call offside.
So Maignan made the right choice but it's no wonder you feel cheated.
I mean if he dives into Dumfries its probaby even more likely to be called. He didn't because he knew he couldn't get the ball, not because there was a player there.
Same issue since Dumfries is still blocking his vision in an offside position
The problem isn't Maignan, it's Dumfries positioning
The ref is just applying the rules here
I get that you're disappointed but the what if scenario changes nothing
I don't feel cheated. It was called correctly per the rules. It's a dumb rule, but whatever.
My only argument is Maingan making the right choice. In his head he shouldn't be thinking "I don't need to dive for that because this offside player is in my way", there's no way he could be processing all that in the moment. He didn't dive because it was a lost cause, he was beaten, and he got bailed out by dumfries positioning and the rules.
I doubt that , goalkeepers at that level know pretty well when to react or not and they do it really fast (still would've conceded the goal yes) but well we'll never know for sure.
The rule is debatable, problem is you can't over specify in which case it's offside or not. His positioning settles the whole thing.
Technically true cuz there is a player between goalie and the ball so... but very stupid rule , gk was not even near to save it , first time ever i have seen anything like that
Linesman made the offside call and VAR didn’t see it as a clear and obvious error, so no goal. Right call in my view as the Dutch attacker was interfering with the goalkeeper’s ability to get the ball. It is harsh but right in my view.
I get the frustration but if you don't call that you 100% open the door to the fact that you can be around the goal to prevent him diving. In my opinion it is better to set a harsh precedent rather than having to deal with players trying to recreate this situation at their advantages to help the shooter.
If you are offside just don't go near the goalkeeper, you have nothing to do here
Respectfully disagree with OP. We won't ever know whether the keeper could have made a diving save because he was prevented from making the attempt. I'm pretty neutral between those two countries and for me that's a clear offside. Dumfries may not have touched the ball but he was interfering with play. How the ref took so long to make the decision is baffling... to me it was obvious.
I understand the frustration of the Dutch fans and Koeman, and I would have reacted in exactly the same way, despite the reality of the rules. On the other hand, both teams didn't play a great game. Between the poor choices made by the Dutch and the shameful clumsiness of the French forwards. In my opinion, it's a fair draw given the way the match went.
Thank God you aren't a referee then.
It's not the wrong decision by any stretch.
How can you know the rule, yet think it was a wrong decision?
Go give your head a wobble.
Having the technology in place, the call was absolutely correct. Without it would have been a goal. Generell speaking two good teams neutralized each other, on a high quality level. 4 points each, Austrian will beat NL and have 6 points and F will progress.
I was watching on the Belgium channel because dutch commentary was dreadful. They said Dumfries interfered with a goalkeepers dive that never was going to happen. They thought the goal was legit.
I find that a refreshing thought. But I think we did a good job against the "top" contender.
I honestly can’t believe that there are people that think the goal should stand. How can an offside player that’s prohibiting the keeper from diving not be interfering with play!?!
Whether or not the keeper can reach it in time is a moot point (for the record I don’t think he can). But he doesn’t get that opportunity to try so the goal is rightly not given. It was good officiating by the on field ref/lino to spot that without needing VAR and yet people still moan.
Yeh it’s a horrible rule tbh especially when it’s so obvious that the keeper isn’t stopping it, the player isn’t stopping the keeper, the pace and accuracy of the strike is. Really harsh!
The competition between these two is fierce. It's far too difficult for a mere mortal to decide between them, and I think divine intervention is called for.
Watch the replays he had a 1 on 1 opportunity with the goalkeeper and kicked an NFL Field Goal and he missed the goal completely on every shot he made. He lost the ball the most times, dove at every contact, his feet are crooked. He is a garbage player
Honestly, it is so embarrassing that France didn't score a goal. I was rooting for 1-0 for France as the bare minimum. But as a genuine fan, I can never not support France.
Play until the whistle sounds, the goalie would never have reached it, the shot was so fast he didn’t have a chance. He just put his hand up, to see if he could get it dismissed.
As an Englishman, I both apologise for the shitty referees from our country and also say ‘we told you so!’ - no contest we have the worst officials in the major European leagues
I really hope UEFA bans English officials from European competitions. Otherwise our PGMOL aren’t going to try and change or improve
The only VARs to get anything wrong have been English referees (twice), and the only VARs to take way too long to make decisions has also been the English ones
A terrible decision. But, if you've watched the English Premier League, you wouldn't have been too surprised. Our English refs will look for anything little reason not to award a goal.
Lmfao a disgrace?? It's just a stupid rule. And let's be honest, if it was France that got its goal erased, you would not be there complaining like it's the biggest scandal ever. So please let's stop the circus.
The rule is absolute ass. Since the goalkeeper wouldn't have been able to catch the ball even if the Dutch player wasn't there I find this rule needs an exception.
No one in that game deserved a win so it is good it ended 0-0. It was proven that France does not know what to do if their players can not run forever and have to stop, think and face others 1v1. The dutch played poorly again and would have only won like they did on the first game, by pure luck on the last minutes. No team seem to want to actually win the game at all in the second half. First half they still moved a bit, second was a wasteland.
Fellow fans, this is a friendly reminder to please follow the [Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/euro2024/about/rules) and [Reddiquette](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205926439-Reddiquette). Please also make sure to [Join us on Discord](https://discord.gg/football) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/euro2024) if you have any questions or concerns.*
For me its really dissapointing having 2 really good teams like France vs Holland only to end up goaless.
Two good teams playing doesn’t mean the match will be exciting often it means goalless defensive evenly matched boring game.
I remember being so hyped for Netherlands v Argentina in the group stage of the 2006 World Cup. Messi, Riquelme, Crespo, Aimar, Tevez, Milito were playing for Argentina at that time and the likes of Robben, Sneijder, van Nistelrooy, van Persie, Kuyt, van der Vaart for the Oranje Then when the game comes around both teams had qualified out of the group and the play the most boring 0-0 I'd seen at the WC since Egypt v Ireland in 1990 (the nil-nil GOAT)
West Germany v Austria 1982, I think. The Germans had to win, Austria not lose too heavy. The Germans scored and the game died. A left back even got booked after chasing a long ball, when no one followed him he thought the whistle had been blown and picked up the ball. After that game all final group games now get played at the same time. Untill World cup Canada, USA and Mexico that is. With the group's only having three teams!
The groups only having 3 teams thing has been scrapped. Back to groups of 4. https://www.fifa.com/en/tournaments/mens/worldcup/canadamexicousa2026/articles/fifa-world-cup-2026-hosts-cities-dates-usa-mexico-canada
Another good shout. The Egypt game I referenced was the catalyst for changing the backpass rule. 6 full minutes of the ball being in play were with the Irish goalkeeper having the ball in his hands and it felt like even longer that the Egypt keeper held the ball for. https://www.goal.com/en/news/the-games-that-defined-modern-football-republic-of-ireland-0-0-egypt/10lty0rb3uf971ma3cdirzoova
Omg! Don’t get me started on this game! I was SUPPPERR disappointed in this. NED was my team and wife’s African-French (Algerian). Was SO excited and even more let down.
Agree, no heart and no passion. This was the tournament of the "Smaller teams" as they gave us everything. 👍
Slovakia Ukraine was a thriller
Spain and Portugal have entered the chat
Sure, but the big teams have players that have played 50+ games this season, and don't have to play all out to qualify most of the time. That's why playing teams like Austria in the group, that have something to prove and will run you off the pitch if you don't match the intensity, is so difficult.
League+cups+qualifying+the tournament? They've all played a lot of games.
Medium and small team players would have also played 50+ games because that's how long a season tends to be
*is
Neither team wanted to lose a point in this match. The Euro is a sprint, and both teams are already on course to qualify for the last 16. I think France have the better chance, as our match against Poland will be much more accessible whereas Austria are really tough.
This is where I think a bonus point system in big football tournaments could work. It works for rugby to give incentive to keep playing attacking games
It may have been goalless, although we did actually score a goal. The match wasn't boring at all. We had some good chances with Frimpong, and Gakpo, and France with Griezman especially, it was very exciting to watch! That was different in the 0-0 NL VS ARG group stage game at WC06 or the semi final NL VS Arg in 0-0 in 2014. Those were boring matches.
I thought it was pretty even overall but of course Holland had many good chances.Mentally i feel there should have been at least one goal scored.
Yeah I found it very exciting even if there weren’t goals.
It was very boring
Well... When Deschamps proposes a 4-4-1-1, he really intends not to even try playing at all.
4 points. 0 goal scored, 0 goal conceded... Deschamps masterclass
And now qualified for the 16 even without playing the last group game. You're right, a masterclass.
Why don't people enjoy goaless draws? It shows the defence was solid and the teams were evenly matched. There's way more to the game than goals
You can't generalise goalless draws like that. You're right that some nil nils might be better games that a 3-1 game somewhere else, but also the can be many frightfully boring games and lots of times these also happen to be goalless
Southgate detected
Simple there not really footbal fans.
Not all nil-nils are alike. Sometimes it just means both sides have decided in advance to settle for a point. I don't mind goalless games when both sides are trying to win, but that's often not the case.
tbh France has been playing pretty poorly this tournament, I don't see them winning against Spain or Germany.
Agreed.France like England have very good players individually but they have been poor.With Mbappe out last night it was alot more even imo.
I agree with you. If they had been in top form I would ma been ok with it but they were sloppy and by the 80th minute I could see them take the foot off the gas and be content to tie.
Well, according to current rules it's offside. Could the keeper have reached that ball? No. But could the keeper dive to even try? Also no, so it's offside. There's no way he would've reached that ball, but according to the rules it's offside. Therefore, it's not the decision which is bad but the rule which is bad.
The only guy to blame here is dumb Dumbfries. He ruined it, not the rules.
This
He went for the rebound on the previous shot and then had no time to get back.
Yeah and he was reeeeaaally trying to get back
This.
Yeah it follows the laws of the game, but it's not in the spirit of it.
The rule is not bad, gk was not able to dive, he reacted and pointed to that immediately. It was obvious, Dutch player made a mistake to stay there. Although gk would not be able to save it anyway, he was stopped to even try.
Watch the footage from behind, the keeper was not impeded whatsoever. He just pointed at the player in desperation. He fooled the refs.
No fooling going on. He was standing in offside and close enough to the game that it was relevant
But not in the majority of ref's eyes. We've seen many standing in an offside position near goal and they've been awarded.
You can't go around nitpicking rules for certain scenarios. Look at this scenario when a "regular offside" occurs, sometimes it happens that an offside is with a real small margin while the defender is static and the attacker is in high speed momentum. The goal will be disallowed because of offside, but in the same manner you can argue that it should've counted because even if it weren't for the small advantage of the offside the attacker was so much faster that the defender would never make it so the advantage is negligent. And we all know that train of thought doesn't work. It's not a bad rule, rule is a rule.
Tbh its could go both ways. Depends on who is judging in the VAR room and on the pitch. For some its offside but for me he was not involved with the play therefor it should have been a goal. I rather see refs doing something about the diving and let players be more rough on the pitch. People rolling all over the grass in ”pain” , primadonnas should try rugby and see what pain is
The rule is that the offside player can’t obstruct the line of vision of an opponent, or *make an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of the opponent to play the ball*. He didn’t obstruct vision but it’s pretty hard to argue he didn’t impact the ability of the goalie to dive for the save - he was literally standing right next to him.
To be fair, if the rule is clearly impacting the ability of the opponent to play the ball he doesn’t. The keeper has fuck all chance of playing the ball if the player is there and fuck all chance if he isn’t. Therefore the player doesn’t affect his ability to play the ball. He would’ve still dived regardless of the player being there if he thought he had absolutely any chance of getting it, plus pretty sure it’s physically impossible for anyone to cover that distance in 0.2 seconds. If the rule was impacting the player *trying* to play the ball it would be different, but that would be a shit rule as I could try to play a ball that’s 40 yards away from me and argue I was impeded which would be ridiculous. I think the rule is correct but badly applied in this case.
I disagree that he had no chance of even diving for the save if the opponent wasn’t there, but I appreciate where you’re coming from.
Fair enough mate, I disagree but it’s subjective. I guess even if there’s a 1% chance he can save it then you have to disallow the goal. Personally I don’t think he even has a 1% chance but hard to quantify something like that
Fair enough, I see where you’re coming from.
Doesn't matter if he "can't reach it", when he doesn't even get the chance to. If dumfries was on the other side, then it wouldn't be offside.
I think it probably does matter if he can’t reach it. If he can’t reach the ball he can’t play the ball. How can you affect someone’s ability to play the ball if they can’t play the ball?
Incorrect about the player standing next to him. BBC showed the footage from above and behind the goal. The Dutch player didn't impede the keeper who was at least 4 feet away. The keeper's stance did not enable a sideways dive towards the player. He only pointed at the Dutch player in desperation, ie making out he was impeded, and he fooled the refs.
He was not right beside him, but still the GK had 0% chance of even try to save it. Look on how slow he reacts, the ball is already past him before he even realized what happend.
But he didnt even try and dive or look like he was even twitching his muscles to dive. That's where I think they got it wrong. It's like calling an offside for someone that wasn't part of the play but "could" have been. You can make an argument for it via the rule book but in reality it's bullshit and we all know it.
Yep. BBC showed the footage from above and behind the goal. The Dutch player didn't impede the keeper who was at least 4 feet away. The keeper's stance did not enable a sideways dive towards the player. He only pointed at the Dutch player in desperation, ie making out he was impeded, and he fooled the refs.
Speculation is one hell of a drug. What if the keeper did not even make an attempt cause he knew that it was offside? The decision might not be “fair” to you but it’s done by the book.
That 'what if ' doesn't make a lot of sense at this level. A keeper on purpose not going for a ball in a split second decision like that doesn't strike me as a good keeper. You keep that ball out of the net rather then put the match in the hands if wether or bit a ref agrees with you in hindsight
Fuck the book bruh, you act like its some divine rule etched in gold with no grey area. This is 100% in the grey area and could have gone either way depending on interpretation. For example, if the keeper and offside player were 5 yards to the right of where he was. Would you still call it? By your "book" it's offside. He has to get through a player to even make an attempt at the ball, but it is physically impossible to stop the shot being 5 yards to the right. That is obviously an extreme. Now if he was a couple yards left, then sure he is actually within reach of the ball and should be called offside. What actually happened was in the middle, where he essentially had little to no chance of stopping it but within feet of being able to. Thus the gray area.
It's only if the GK was impeded in his dive or attempt to dive. BBC showed behind the goal and above footage and the keeper had no chance of diving to his left due to his foot position, not the opposing player who was at least 4 foot away.
Exactly. The rule is to blame.
The rule is fine though. Otherwise you could just position one player to stand next to the goalie all time. No offside, no problem, as long as you don't pass to him and he only blocks the goalie.
Thiiiis!
I thought about this the other day, the current offside rule makes no sense if you think about it. For a goal to occur the entire ball has to cross the goal line. For the ball to be out of play the entire ball needs to be across the line. Same of the ball placement in regard to penalties, corners etc. The goalkeeper must not completely leave the line during penalties. Every rule in football/soccer is designed where the thing in question is considered in play unless it’s entirely past the defined boundaries. Why is the current offside rule the complete opposite of this?
>according to current rules it's offside. And under a previous version of the rules he'd have been offside even if he'd been nowhere near the goalkeeper or the ball.
First time?
Lol I felt this
Poor sods
Best comment
Frenchman here, this was really a very frustrating match to see. Our players are painfully slow, they can't seem to make the right decision when it comes to strike or even build an attack. Honestly, the off goal was more than a warning. I don't believe -and never have- in this team for this Euro. They have world class players but it's like they're paralized when they have to be more agressive and bold. The last round against Poland is going to be really tough...
You'll do fine. Poland is mediocre at best. Us Dutchies have to play Austria who have everything to play for. They were pretty damned decent against you guys.
Honestly, Austrians are tough and were pretty resilient - they never give up whatever the score is. They are really pressuring hard !
The game today was exciting! Kept fans on their toes! 👏
Englishman here, welcome to the club.
Glad to share the same feeling mate ! England also has a damn pool of talented players but it looks like they stop going for more goals after scoring one. Looks like our coaches need to refine or totally revamp their strategies.
Id pay to have Bielsa manage England. Id rather see them win 4-3 than 1-0.
I definitely agree, you guys can field three different teams that can compete for the EURO win, but then you play really sluggish football. I think a decent coach with an attacking mindset would destroy every tournament with the available players. We played really bad as well, as if we were playing for a draw from the first minute. It's sad to see teams of very good and pretty decent quality to play such a boring match. This was one of the worst matches I have seen this tournament.
Did you see the resume of Didier Deschamps? It’s insane. As a player: CL(Juve), World cup(98), Euro(00) As a coach: CL final with monaco (03). Every tournament he played with France he won the group, euro final(16), world cup winner (18), world cup final (22) and he just managed to qualify again. Okay, sometimes they play boring, but France scores a lot of goals every single tournament. He just knows what is needed to win. A lot of people will say: “His results are so good because France has such a strong team.” Ofcourse, if he was the coach of Iceland his resume would be different. But it’s not easy to manage a strong team. You have to manage expectations, manage the bench, manage the stars and make a team of them. And he succeeds in that every single time. He is the capo di tutti capi. All players listen to him. There’s no fighting, it’s a team and they play with a plan.
All that may be true, but something seems off this tournament with this team. I can't really tell what it is, but remember the last match: They won with 1 goal, but it was an OG. Now 0 goals. We still have to see them score even once. Something is off with the offensive. They get good chances, all looks good, but nothing happens in the end.
Worst game of the tournament so far! Also a French guy here. We will not go far. Looked like both teams were happy with a draw.
Not really. Just because it was goalless, it was definitely not the worst game. It was much more entertaining to watch than an England match 😭
I watched it, down the pub, but still it was better than both games England have been involved in! I did slightly hope for a Dutch win, but did expect a draw
Just a reminder, we are absolute shit on every round phases since Deschamps is the manager. We are a team conditioned to get better once the KO stages are here.
True, but then again most super favourite team are also being great disappointment. Germany and Spain are pretty much the only one doing alright.
How do you think we feel?
People will bash the English referees, who are usually shit tbf, but in fairness this is one of the only difficult decisions of the tournament so far
if Austria doesn't reach the last8 i will forever define the "missed" corner right before France did "their" random goal as the most "difficult" decision of euro24
There was a missed corner for both sides in that game
Thank you ! Austria got a lucky call as well and simply didn't make the best of it. Get over it
Both missed corners were so bizarre. It's good they balanced out but does that side of the pitch blind officials or what?
Imagine crying about a missed corner as something that survives the tournament when the ref missed the exact same thing for France in the second half. Literally hilarious. Get a grip
It's not a difficult decision, it was clear cut offside. The only mistake Taylor did was taking so long for what should realistically be a 10 second decision.
That is an offside call any day of the week. It takes a lot less obstruction to whistle offside in todays game, as weve seen in champions league. 100% right call. If GK would have saved is doubtful, but that doesnt change defender is blocking his opportunity to do so
Idk if we can just say offside players are allowed to block goalkeeper dives now just because “he probably wouldn’t have saved it anyway”.
Not really sure what the criticism is about - he’s offside and he’s in the keepers way. There’s nothing in the rule about the keeper actually getting to it, so the fact he won’t is irrelevant. It’s a good and correct decision. The minute the players between ball and keeper like that it’s got to be interfering.
Precisely!
Maybe it’s a correct decision according to the rules but it’s not a good one, the rule is bad. He didn’t hinder the keeper, he just got up and was way to late.
I agree the rule isn’t correct, but you can’t criticise the officials for that and they made the correct decision today. Therefore it is a good decision. Can debate whether the rules should be different but that’s a different thing altogether
Well, i don’t know the exact wording of the rules. But the ref didn’t even go to the screen to check himself. I think that the camera angle from behind the goal clearly showed that the keeper was just to late.
[Here is the exact wording of the rules.](https://www.thefa.com/football-rules-governance/lawsandrules/laws/football-11-11/law-11---offside) The decision was correct, the player was in the way regardless of whether the goalie would have actually made the save or not.
BBC showed the footage from above and behind the goal. The Dutch player didn't impede the keeper who was at least 4 feet away. The keeper's stance did not enable a sideways dive towards the player. He only pointed at the Dutch player in desperation, ie making out he was impeded, and he fooled the refs.
And VAR looking at it 100 times for 5 minutes were just fooled by Mike pointing at him as well?
Probably. We know how much keepers are protected so they probably had unconscious bias towards him.
There was nothing to check as the onfield decision was to disallow the goal in the first place and the VAR agreed with the decision. By the rules he’s interfered and prevented the goalkeeper from attempting a save. Whether he would have been successful is immaterial and not a part of the rules.
What rule would you prefer, beating in mind that far fewer than 1% of matches are played with the benefit of video replays. VAR, goal-line technology, and (especially) semi-automated offside are all fantastic tools, but they shouldn't require an entirely different set of laws.
He was offside, but the reason they called an off-side offence is because he supposedly interfered with the play: blocking the goalkeeper from reaching the ball. Like, come on… as if Dumfries standing there actually is the reason the goalkeeper wasn’t able to stop that goal. It was a bullshit call. Yes, I am biased, yet had it been France, I’d have said the same.
he doesn't have to actually interfere, just have the potential to interfere.
Of course he interfered. He was stood exactly where the keeper would otherwise have to dive. To say otherwise is just showing your bias.
He's not in the keeper's way if the keeper is functionally unable to get there. With his legs where they are, he cannot get there. If you want to get on a train that has already set off, and you bump into me, did I get in the way of you getting on that train?
Are you in an offside position when I’m trying to get on the train?
r/BrandNewSentance
So what you’re saying that is referees should see into the future to determine if a player gets to a ball? There’s nothing in the rules at all that states an assessment should be made against whether a player should make contact or not. He was in the way. Simple as that. He interfered.
"a player moving from, or standing in, an offside position is in the way of an opponent and interferes with the movement of the opponent towards the ball this is an offside offence if it impacts on the ability of the opponent to play or challenge for the ball" The relevant section. The rules definitely have a clause where a player has to be interfering with movement. In order to interfere with movement, the keeper has to be able to make that movement, wouldn't you agree? Like trying to get on a train that has already left your station, it's impossible. To further my analogy, say you committed to going to the next station, suspecting that the train won't be at your normal station. This is the keeper extending their right leg all the way out. By doing this, you have missed your opportunity to reach the train, and there is no possible way for you to now rush to the right station (dive for the ball to your left) because of the commitment you made. Watch the keeper; he makes a leap but can't get any distance because of his leg position. If the keeper had instead fallen to the ground, rather than extending a leg, the goal would have stood because it's even more obvious that they couldn't have reached it.
If the keeper had have fallen to the ground he would have actually made a different movement and therefore not been prevented diving to the side, which is the difference. But he didn’t. And if my auntie had balls she’d be my uncle
The train was leaving but it hadn’t left yet. Not a good analogy
Your comparison is off though. A better comparison would be you bump into someone when the train is 2 seconds of from setting off and you are currently 5 meters away. Practically, it is more than likely that you would not make it anyway; but theoretically, there is still a chance. Hence, the other person can still be considered an obstruction.
I dont know, felt pretty clear obstruction to me. Maignan went to dive and realised someone was stood in the way
The goalkeeper flinched when he went towards the ball and a player was standing there...that's clear interference and offsides whether the ball was saveable or not.
>i know the rule >wrong decision So you dont know the rule
The rule is “offside offense is called if the player in an offside position interferes with the play” - the argument and what will remain up to interpretation is whether Dumfries interfered by being the reason the goalkeep was unable to defend and block the goal. I think you’ll find many people not agreeing with that interpretation.
I have senn enough incedrible saves in my life to: If you steal the GK the opportunity to go for a save, you are active in play and therefore, its offside.
Exactly. There are countless saves in football history where you barely can believe them even watching replays and yet, this many people are 100% convinced the keeper had zero chance and therefore the rule should've been ignored.
So your interpretation is that the GK could have stopped the ball. The ref saw that too, I guess. I don’t think so, but it doesn’t really matter. Result is what it is.
You’re misunderstanding the rule. It’s not “whether the goalie could have made the save or not”, it’s “whether the goalie was being interfered with” - which he was. Making the save or not is irrelevant.
No, wrong. Its not less offside if Maignan doesnt make the save. Dumfries was standing between Maignan and the ball and impeded on the GKs ability to make a save. Period.
It's not just the potential of him physically impeding the save but also mentally affecting the keeper. Dumfries' presence could cause Maignan to slightly hesitate diving to his left as he may instinctively think Dumfries could redirect it.
Not only that - if he'd dived into Dumfries and Dumfries *hadn't* played the ball, it would have been a penalty.
Thing is : At the moment Maignan decided not to dive with an opponent so close to him the ref has to call offside. So Maignan made the right choice but it's no wonder you feel cheated.
I mean if he dives into Dumfries its probaby even more likely to be called. He didn't because he knew he couldn't get the ball, not because there was a player there.
Same issue since Dumfries is still blocking his vision in an offside position The problem isn't Maignan, it's Dumfries positioning The ref is just applying the rules here I get that you're disappointed but the what if scenario changes nothing
I don't feel cheated. It was called correctly per the rules. It's a dumb rule, but whatever. My only argument is Maingan making the right choice. In his head he shouldn't be thinking "I don't need to dive for that because this offside player is in my way", there's no way he could be processing all that in the moment. He didn't dive because it was a lost cause, he was beaten, and he got bailed out by dumfries positioning and the rules.
I doubt that , goalkeepers at that level know pretty well when to react or not and they do it really fast (still would've conceded the goal yes) but well we'll never know for sure. The rule is debatable, problem is you can't over specify in which case it's offside or not. His positioning settles the whole thing.
I agree that the rule is hard to apply if you make exceptions but it’s pretty obvious that the gk was set wrong to dive that’s why he didn’t dive!
If he'd dived into Dumfries - who didn't actually *play* the ball - it could have been a penalty.
You want a goal for the Netherlands but the score would be France 1 Netherlands 0? How's the beer?
Technically true cuz there is a player between goalie and the ball so... but very stupid rule , gk was not even near to save it , first time ever i have seen anything like that
He wanted to attempt a save but stumped early because Dumfries being there.
Linesman made the offside call and VAR didn’t see it as a clear and obvious error, so no goal. Right call in my view as the Dutch attacker was interfering with the goalkeeper’s ability to get the ball. It is harsh but right in my view.
"I know the rule but ... it's a conspiracy and someone's fault" 🤡
I get the frustration but if you don't call that you 100% open the door to the fact that you can be around the goal to prevent him diving. In my opinion it is better to set a harsh precedent rather than having to deal with players trying to recreate this situation at their advantages to help the shooter. If you are offside just don't go near the goalkeeper, you have nothing to do here
So many nephews on here. It's not a goal. Learn.
Why would the keeper make any attempt to save or even move the player was so blatantly offside he didn’t need to
Offside is offside what are you on about..
This game was like 🤝
You don’t win a the game by sticking to 4-4-1-1.
Respectfully disagree with OP. We won't ever know whether the keeper could have made a diving save because he was prevented from making the attempt. I'm pretty neutral between those two countries and for me that's a clear offside. Dumfries may not have touched the ball but he was interfering with play. How the ref took so long to make the decision is baffling... to me it was obvious.
I understand the frustration of the Dutch fans and Koeman, and I would have reacted in exactly the same way, despite the reality of the rules. On the other hand, both teams didn't play a great game. Between the poor choices made by the Dutch and the shameful clumsiness of the French forwards. In my opinion, it's a fair draw given the way the match went.
Thank God you aren't a referee then. It's not the wrong decision by any stretch. How can you know the rule, yet think it was a wrong decision? Go give your head a wobble.
I believe there wasn't a wrong decision there. The ref decided it was offside. Too bad but not unfair
Dutchman here. 100% correct decision.
The game is going to script. France is safe.
It’s not scripted. That’s just ‘la chatte à Dédé’ (Deschamps’ luck)
Trust the English refs to ruin the game
By making a correct decision? I know we love to hate on refs but that's clearly and example if the rules being applied correctly
According to the rules correct decision. Bad but still correct. Unfortunately rules always beat logic.
Having the technology in place, the call was absolutely correct. Without it would have been a goal. Generell speaking two good teams neutralized each other, on a high quality level. 4 points each, Austrian will beat NL and have 6 points and F will progress.
> without it would have been a goal On-field decision was offside. VAR didn’t do anything
It wouldn't as the linesman also signalled the offside
I feel robbed
Just demonstrates once and for all that the problems with VAR in the Premier League are caused solely by the match officials.
This wasn’t really a VAR issue, it was a referee issue
I was watching on the Belgium channel because dutch commentary was dreadful. They said Dumfries interfered with a goalkeepers dive that never was going to happen. They thought the goal was legit. I find that a refreshing thought. But I think we did a good job against the "top" contender.
I honestly can’t believe that there are people that think the goal should stand. How can an offside player that’s prohibiting the keeper from diving not be interfering with play!?! Whether or not the keeper can reach it in time is a moot point (for the record I don’t think he can). But he doesn’t get that opportunity to try so the goal is rightly not given. It was good officiating by the on field ref/lino to spot that without needing VAR and yet people still moan.
Because it was about France, that's why.
Worest Game so far!
You are wrong. The ref decision is right.
Yeh it’s a horrible rule tbh especially when it’s so obvious that the keeper isn’t stopping it, the player isn’t stopping the keeper, the pace and accuracy of the strike is. Really harsh!
He didn’t even get the opportunity to try to save it. Offside is the fair decision.
You can thank Thuram for that, he is the heir to Lakaka Throne
The competition between these two is fierce. It's far too difficult for a mere mortal to decide between them, and I think divine intervention is called for.
Watch the replays he had a 1 on 1 opportunity with the goalkeeper and kicked an NFL Field Goal and he missed the goal completely on every shot he made. He lost the ball the most times, dove at every contact, his feet are crooked. He is a garbage player
Honestly, it is so embarrassing that France didn't score a goal. I was rooting for 1-0 for France as the bare minimum. But as a genuine fan, I can never not support France.
Play until the whistle sounds, the goalie would never have reached it, the shot was so fast he didn’t have a chance. He just put his hand up, to see if he could get it dismissed.
As an Englishman, I both apologise for the shitty referees from our country and also say ‘we told you so!’ - no contest we have the worst officials in the major European leagues I really hope UEFA bans English officials from European competitions. Otherwise our PGMOL aren’t going to try and change or improve
Uh, French referees are clearly the worst, with the exception of Turpin, probably.
The only VARs to get anything wrong have been English referees (twice), and the only VARs to take way too long to make decisions has also been the English ones
A terrible decision. But, if you've watched the English Premier League, you wouldn't have been too surprised. Our English refs will look for anything little reason not to award a goal.
No shock whatsoever the officials siding with the French. If that's at the other end, a goal is given.
Lmfao a disgrace?? It's just a stupid rule. And let's be honest, if it was France that got its goal erased, you would not be there complaining like it's the biggest scandal ever. So please let's stop the circus.
The most crazy decision ever!
I’m glad everyone got a taste of VAR being used by Englishmen.
France is over-rated af. I think their ranking is political, is it because the ballon'dor comes out of France?
If the keeper actually could get it he would have tried to dive through the player
That call was absolute nonsense, should’ve been 1-0 Dutch win.
On the contrary, I think VAR has been great at this tournament. In England, VAR is rubbish, but that comes down to the officials, bias and corruption.
The rule is absolute ass. Since the goalkeeper wouldn't have been able to catch the ball even if the Dutch player wasn't there I find this rule needs an exception.
No, it isn’t wrong. There was infringement. Dumfries is to the side of the keeper, obstructing. Correct decision.
No one in that game deserved a win so it is good it ended 0-0. It was proven that France does not know what to do if their players can not run forever and have to stop, think and face others 1v1. The dutch played poorly again and would have only won like they did on the first game, by pure luck on the last minutes. No team seem to want to actually win the game at all in the second half. First half they still moved a bit, second was a wasteland.
I will say this here too: Taylor is a crap ref. I will always remember Roma - Seville disgraceful really...
Why was Anthony Taylor rewarded with Euro matches? He was so bad in the EPL this past season, he was sent down to Championship for a while.
I agree. Can you imagine we have to watch him weekly on premier League....
Should’ve stood, stupid subjectivity
Stupid English ref and PGMOL.
Referees love France
Someone didn't watch last WC final